If You Could Only Have One Lens...

What would it be? This thread was suggested on another thread asking which lens you have but don't use.

At heart, I am somewhat of a minimalist, but looking in my camera bag might suggest otherwise. Admittedly, I always sense 'diminishing returns' as regards pleasure in a hobby the more I purchase. One lens is good...are five lenses 5 times better?

My bag includes the 23/2, Zeiss 32/1.8, 50/2, 18-135, and 5 or 6 adapted lenses. A modest set up, to be sure. So which one would I keep if a law were passed restricting us to one lens? I can't really say. It would not be a zoom. Preferably, a prime between 16 and 50, and capable of reasonably close focus.

When I was younger, I pursued subjects. Now, I'd rather they come to me. Not out of laziness, but perhaps the discovery there are a lot of normal, everyday things to photograph out there, and the normal can become interesting through a lens. Maybe the lens determines for me which one of those I choose to shoot.

As I commented to another photog the other day, if god came down today and told me I could only use one Fuji lens forever, it would be the 56 f/1.2. It's only 6mm about the requirement, so I feel it should pass.

Based on my previous history with my Nikon 35mm SLR and my Leica 35mm rangefinder, I knew that the 35mm f/1.4 was my favorite lens. Therefore, the first lens I purchased for my Fuji X-Pro1 was the 23mm f/1.4.

On the other hand, if I had to restrict myself to one zoom lens, it would be the 16-55mm f/2.8 Fujinon.

I like primes so I couldn't do it.
Although maybe two and definitely three.

For the sake of argument, I would choose the 16mm 1.4.
I feel like I could crop it somewhat if need be and the fast aperture and min. focus makes for fun close ups.
Two lenses? Add the 56.
Three - add the 23 f2.

Of the existing Fuji lenses...the 18/2 would work for me. Adapted lenses it would be a 28/2 that could close focus. Of non existent Fuji lenses a 27/2 with an aperture ring but the rendering of the original 18/35/60 lenses.

I like primes so I couldn't do it.
Although maybe two and definitely three.

Click to expand...

Very much that way for me now...probably the 23mm f/1.4. I find myself shooting a lot at that focal length now with the X100T, with the 23mm f/2, with the 18-55 (close to that FL) and especially with the f/1.4. I really am not up to carrying a heavy zoom anymore so zooms are the 18-55mm and 55-200 except when I drag out the 100-400 monster.

If I could have any lens it would be an 8mm-600mm f0.95 weighing in at less than 500 grams and costing less than US $1,000. Of course, it would have fantastic bokeh, lighting fast focus, IS, and balance perfectly with the XT4 and the XE4. (Sorry, I'm not purchasing the XPro3 or XPro4). lol

I've often said the 35/1.4. It is the most practical choice. And for pictures taken for other people it's the best choice, since it can do almost anything serviceably well and many things exceptionally well.

But I have to say, I find myself constantly drawn to 16mm and wider. I've been putting the most miles on the Tokina 11-16mm/2.8 (adapted Nikon mount) of late.

The 16/1.4 is the best Fuji choice I have, and it is an amazing lens. Fast. Close focus. Amazing rendering. Really wide but not crazy.

If I owned it, I might be tempted to say the Fuji 10-24/4. Covers the ultra wide end, produces great results, very reasonable size for what it delivers, even gets long enough for most purposes. I would be bothered by the f4 maximum. But I would be tempted.

Eventually, I'll get over the ultra wide thing and settle back into a more reasonable place. Or not...